The notorious 300 page dossier of perversion and financial corruption that was delivered to Benedict in December 2012 has apparently started to leak. An Italian publication has seen the document and is now reporting in some vague tones regarding it. A few specifics have come out, however, and it seems Kevin Farrell and Francis figure prominently in it. It seems reports reached the Vatican prior to Farrell being elevated to auxiliary bishop in 2002 (shortly after McCarrick, his sponsor and roommate, was made cardinal over the objections of a number of faithful Catholics) of evidence of moral corruption.

What many have strongly suspected for a long time is being confirmed:

The Vatican is reeling from news that the 300-page dossier containing names of members of the gay lobby — a dossier some believe led to Pope Benedict’s resignation in 2013 — has been leaked to the media.

Il Fatto Quotidiano, an Italian journal read by Vatican officials, is confirming it has seen the 300-page dossier. “The report contains a detailed and disturbing picture of the moral and material corruption of the clergy, with names, surnames and circumstances,” writes Francesca Fagnani.

We are … able to view a document on papal letterhead included in the investigation, and here we publish an excerpt: It is a list of prelates and laymen who belong to the so-called gay lobby, which through blackmail and secrets could affect, or have conditioned, positions and careers (theirs, like those of others).

We will not reveal the names shown in the list, but we can confirm that among the names there are people removed by the Pope, others moved from office, others who still hold important positions in strategic organs for the Vatican, such as Propaganda Fide and even the Secretariat of State.

Among those implicated in the dossier is none other than Cdl. Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, who has repeatedly claimed he knew nothing of former housemate Abp. Theodore McCarrick’s homosexual predation, although they lived together on the same floor of the same house for six years in Washington, D.C.

“Farrell was appointed auxiliary bishop of Washington precisely because it was McCarrick who wanted him as a deputy,” Fagnani reports in a September 4 article focusing on a “Farrell dossier.” “The two were part of the ‘magic circle’ of Pope Francis.”

[A case] on the auxiliary bishop of Washington, Kevin Joseph Farrell, is said to have been filed at the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith in the Vatican, at the Dicastery that is responsible for investigating sexual and other crimes against good morals, which, if not rebutted, would fall squarely on the Pope like a boulder. Farrell [was] appointed directly by Bergoglio to head the Dicastery of the Family.

In response to Il Fatto Quotidiano‘s queries with regard to the existence of a file on Farrell, the Vatican is refusing to confirm or deny.

“There will be no communication,” was the response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “The Vatican therefore does not deny Il Fatto Quotidiano, but chooses the strategy of silence as for McCarrick,” Fagani writes.

Pope Benedict’s sudden resignation in 2013 is allegedly linked to the 300-page dossier; some media reported that Benedict chose to resign the same day he received the dossier, the result of findings of an investigation commissioned by the Holy Father into clerical corruption and malfeasance…….

……”If the public were aware of the content of the final report it would be a disaster for the image of the Church, already devastated in the whole world by sexual scandals,” she added. [The acts are horribly scandalous, yes. Thousands of unworthy men have invaded the priesthood like a virus and made the Church incredibly sick as a result. But the real source of scandal is the culture of corruption, self-interest, and cover-up that the laity are absolutely sick of. That must end, and if that means the laity have to be shocked to find out that supposedly “good conservative” priests and prelates are active sodomites or practical thieves, so be it. Far better to have an honest and morally upright clergy 1/10th the size of the present clergy than the den of thieves and sodomites currently occupying these sacred roles.]

The hope after Benedict’s resignation was that a younger, stronger pope would be elected to help clean up the Church; thus Francis was chosen with the understanding he’d be a man of reform. But under his papacy, some senior clergy believe conditions have worsened, not improved.

The travesty of the 2013 abdication makes itself more and more apparent with each passing year. That this dossier played a significant part in Benedict’s decision to abdicate is very clear. His thinking apparently was that a younger, stronger man was needed to fight this scourge and reform Holy Mother Church. So, in the end, he did flee for fear of the wolves. Of course, Benedict had apparently always kept the idea of abdication in his back pocket from day one. In this, he always remained the revolutionary at heart, the loyal disciple of Karl Rahner, who, even though he recoiled at the repercussions his (and his master’s) Vatican II ideas wrought, still never quite became a reliable beacon of orthodoxy. He very much to blame in all this chaos.

According to repeated reports in the Italian media, and confirmed by the Italian traditionalist blog Messa in Latino via Vatican sources, a dossier highlighting the sodomitical activities of former Dallas Bishop and current Cardinal (and head of the Pontifical Dicastery for the Laity and Family, perversely) Kevin Farrell, and especially his two-decade live-in arrangement with disgraced Cardinal Theodore McCarrick (Farrell’s constant ecclesiastical sponsor and helper in climbing the ladder), is moving through the Vatican bureaucracy and may be the latest blow to Francis’ increasingly corrupt pontificate.

All the reports are in Italian but One Peter Five has helpfully obtained a translation. Many excerpts below. Folks, if there was ever any question why Farrell insisted on having a million dollar private home away from the Chancery and Cathedral (and prying eyes), I think the answer is obvious. In addition, is it any wonder why the chancery is located in the longtime focal point and “home” of the Dallas “gay community” – Oak Lawn? The signs have been there all along for those with eyes to see:

Farrell, picked by Pope Francis as the prefect for the new Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life, is the highest ranking prelate from the United States. He is also a former Legionary of Christ – under the tenure of their founder, the monstrous abuser Fr. Marcial Maciel – and also one of those closest to the disgraced former cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Farrell served as McCarrick’s vicar general and auxiliary in Washington, D.C., living in the same residence with McCarrick until his retirement in 2006. [Right, Farrell came from – at the very least – a very troubled institution, and was quite close to its founder. Then he shacks up with Cardinal McCarrick for close to 20 years. To say he’s been close to scandal his entire career is no exaggeration.]

Farrell claimed, at the time revelations of McCarrick’s abuse began to be made public earlier this year, that he had no knowledge of McCarrick’s abusive activities. “Never once did I even suspect” McCarrick, said Farrell to the Associated Press (AP) in July 2018. In another, earlier interview, he told Cindy Wooden of Catholic News Service (CNS), “I was a priest of Washington, D.C. I worked in the chancery, in Washington. And never. No indication. None whatsoever.” The video of that CNS interview came immediately under scrutiny because Farrell’s facial expressions betrayed none of the emotions – such as shock – that he claimed to be feeling over the revelations. [I can’t imagine anyone who actually believed him]

Claims of new information from Francesca Fagnani of Il Fatto Quotidiano may bring light to Farrell’s involvement in what has rapidly become the most high-profile abuse case in the Catholic Church. The Italian report, translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino for OnePeterFive, says there is a “violent and unprecedented civil war” in the Church that now involves even the pope. Following Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s bombshell testimony about cover-ups of the abuse of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick that included Pope Francis, Fagnani says that “soon another bomb could break out.”

“According to reliable sources close to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” says Fagnani, “there may be a similar dossier on Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell.”

“Farrell was specifically nominated as Auxiliary Bishop of Washington,” writes Fagnani, “because Cardinal Theodore McCarrick wanted him as his assistant, and these two men became part of Pope Francis’ ‘magic circle.’ Farrell and McCarrick also lived together for years, sharing the same apartment. How could Farrell possibly not know all about McCarrick’s sexual behaviors?”

Fagnani then asks the obvious question without providing a specific answer:

What is contained in this new dossier on Farrell? The Pope and the Secretariat of State know about every single new thread of every investigation that is opened by the Tribunal of the CDF, so how could they possibly now know about this? Did Farrell’s nomination to such a high post precede or follow the opening of this investigation? The historian Roberto de Mattei, among the most knowledgeable of Vatican experts, known for his traditionalist positions, adds this little comment: “The link between the two prelates [McCarrick and Farrell] was known but never clarified. There may be something else behind the silence of Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin.”

And what exactly might that “something” be?

You can go to One Peter Five for the rest, but I think you can well imagine what that “something else” might be. They are STILL engaging in cover-up, it’s been endemic to this papacy since its beginning, being based on a foundation of sodomite institutional power, and the lid may well blow off another massive scandal involving Farrell, if they cannot keep it silent. Don’t assume they won’t be successful, however. Francis has managed to keep the vast majority of curial sodomy scandals out of the press (the press generally being only too happy to go along). That doesn’t mean that this info against Farrell is wrong, or doesn’t exist – it may simply be deliberately buried.

After he had left, I was told something about Cardinal Farrell that really struck me. He never prayed. I mean, he was never known to pray privately. He offered Mass when he had to, he looked positively green when he came to the consecration of Mater Dei, but he did not pray. The man is a bishop, now a cardinal. And he doesn’t pray. That tells you pretty much all you need to know.

There are two petitions circling that call to have, ahem, Cardinal Farrell’s name removed from both the Holy Trinity Seminary student center and the Cardinal Farrell Center on the UD campus (which is confusing, since the seminary and UD are practically co-located). This is the one for removing Farrell’s name from UD.

Why should his name be removed? Well, for starters, how about his very close proximity to two of the most hideous abuse scandals in the history of the Church?

According to Cardinal Farrell, he was in the middle of two massive scandals, but somehow suspected nothing. By his own testimony, he is either a lying prelate or a clueless one. If a liar, Kevin Farrell is complicit in the sexual abuse of minors and the violation of ordination vows. These evils were rampant at Holy Trinity Seminary just a few decades ago; why should the seminary honor those who enable them today?

Because he lacks any basic qualification to merit the honor of a seminary building, and especially in light of his lack of character as shown by these scandals, we call on the administration of Holy Trinity Seminary to refrain from naming the future activity center after him. We propose naming the building after one more worthy, such as a saint who stands as a model for priests, or a virtuous person who has done good for the seminary. Until a new name is chosen, we refuse to honor Kevin Farrell and shall not contribute any funds towards the construction of this building.

Here’s another reason – then Bishop Farrell, while here in Dallas, was essentially never, ever, known to pray. Think about that.

Hey, that cardinal’s hat wasn’t going to land on his head all by itself. It had to be earned. Kevin Farrell may not pray much, have a great depth of spirituality, or even know much theology, but he sure as heck know who the piper is, and what tune is being called.

Marriage ministry needs to be done by married couples because priests have “no credibility in this area,” Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, told a church gathering. [So, marriage is in the direct area of responsibility for Cardinal Farrell]

Delivering the keynote address to 500 delegates from the Diocese of Down and Connor at the Faith and Life convention in Belfast Sept. 30, Farrell discussed Pope Francis’ 2016 apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (“The Joy of Love”) and appealed to parishes to establish study groups on the document and to train couples to teach, prepare, guide and accompany married couples. [Giving a talk to a large group of laity concerning “Faith and Life,” Cardinal Farrell chose to make a bold statement]

On the role of priests in marriage accompaniment and preparation, he said they had “no credibility when it comes to living the reality of marriage” even though they may know the principles, the philosophy and the theology. [This is manifestly incorrect. Priests have the primary responsibility to train and form lay people in every aspect of life, but especially regarding the Seven Sacraments. More in a second.]

Speaking to Catholic News Service afterward, the Dublin-born former bishop of Dallas said parishes would have to be prepared to train laypeople for such a role, which he saw as a new model of accompaniment in line with the pope’s vision for the church…….[So is this really about what’s best for couples, or who provides the best catechesis, or is it about implementing an ideological agenda in the Church?]

……..Ministering by couples to couples is better done by “people who have walked in their shoes,” the cardinal said. He admitted he did not “have a clue” how to answer some of the questions on couples’ difficulties, which his own nieces and nephews had put to him. [Well that’s more the shame for you and your family, not to mention the Diocese of Dallas which you led for nearly a decade, and now the entire Church. This claim is based on a logical fallacy, that only those who live an experience can speak sensibly on it. In point of fact, being buried knee deep in an experience can actually warp one to a point that making a sensible, helpful contribution on it is impossible – one is simply too close to the problem. Even though Cardinal Farrell makes some statements about the laity needing to be trained, lay-led catechesis in the vast majority of the Church (re: Novus Ordo world) has been and remains a disaster. Most laity are very poorly and narrowly educated, and what education they have received has been dominated by leftist/modernist suppositions. It is very hard not to see this as yet another avenue by which to undermine the sanctity of marriage. And, by the way, Cardinal, lay people have been doing the lion’s share of what a paltry excuse for “marriage prep” exists in the Church today. Priests, largely sequestered in their offices as administrators and occasional “sacramental administrators,” have only rarely played a substantial role in marriage prep for decades. Indeed, my wife and I received exceedingly poor marriage prep, consisting of two 1 1/2 hour meetings, from an old hippy couple in Austin, both divorced and remarried. What shining example we received! We didn’t learn diddly squat, except that sex is groovy and we should contracept. There are exceptions to this sad practice, which has done so much already to undermine marriage in the Church, and turn American Catholics into creatures indistinguishable from the broader culture when it comes to marriage, and now you wish to visit the American/Western disaster upon the broader world (or has Cardinal Farrell so adopted his beloved leader’s ideology that he has convinced himself that it’s 1955 again, and mean old priests, casting poor divorced souls out of church left and right, refusing to hear their confessions, are giving lay people really severe, strict, morally impossible catechesis. What planet do these guys live on – or are their arguments really so weak they must create a straw man Church)? Anyway, those exceptions are far too rare, and generally concentrated in traditional parishes and the few brave, persecuted, orthodox Novus Ordo priests.]

“I have no experience of that and the majority of priests don’t have that experience,” Farrell said, noting that many of the married couples who attended the 2014 and 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family insisted that more lay couples be involved in marriage ministry. [Priests absolutely DO have, or CAN have, experience of a beautifully lived marital vocation, in the form of the witness provided by their parents! This is where many great Saints and moral theologians, such as Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, gained their experience, and it was sufficient to guide dozens of generations of married Catholics to sanctity. It is only in this period of cold hearts and dead faith that the leadership of the Church find it necessary to invent all kinds of new failed programs to replace the old, successful ones, the ones that were given up for dead because they failed to “resonate with the new man.” But the new man is the same as the old, it is only the faith of the new men in leadership which has failed.]

Well, we can certainly see that in Cardinal Farrell, Francis found the right man for his job of remaking the Church in his own image.

Now, if you’re like me, Cardinal Farrell was speaking quite boldly, even definitively. He left no doubt that he feels that priests “have no credibility in this area.” That’s a quite definitive statement.

So how did the Catholic press, especially Catholic News Service writer Sarah MacDonald, report this really remarkable declaration from Farrell? Get this headline: “Prefect suggests couples can be better at marriage prep than priests.” Hmmm. Is that your takeaway from this? That Cardinal Farrell suggested that priests could be better at marriage prep than priests? It read to me like he just came out and said it, like a bald statement of fact.

And so we see that fake news is not limited to the secular world! That’s how you got Trump, Mzzz. MacDonald.

…….and thus serves his patron and master. GloriaTV calls Farrell ultraliberal – an assessment I would have argued with once but not so much today (Farrell is a veritable weathervane for the ecclesiastical winds) – and notes his line of ad hominem attack against the signers of the Correctio Filialis:

Pope Francis “is not a heretic” according to the ultraliberal Curia Cardinal Kevin Farrell, 70. Taking to cruxnow.com on October 2, Farrell attacked the Filial Correction by launching personal attacks against the signatories rather than by responding to their arguments. According to him the signatories “use any excuse just to attack him [Francis].”

In response to the interview, one of the signatories, Deacon Nick Donnelly, states on twitter that Francis “is not accused of being a heretic, but of promulgating heresy”.

During a NCR-interview in 2016, Farrell insinuated that Amoris Laetitia has the same authority as the Bible, “Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.”

Please don’t tell me what good things Bishop Farrell did while he was here. First, that was then, this is now, but even more, he did a heckuva lot of bad things like totally ghettoizing the TLM and even blocking priests from offering Mass partially in Latin, Ad Orientem, or basically anything that substantially improved the reverence of the Mass. And that’s only his malfeasance with regard to the Liturgy. He did a few things better than his seminary but on the grand scale – and as we find out more and more after his departure – he was just what you would expect a creature of McCarrick would be.

I will say that there is scant difference between “promulgating heresy” and being a heretic. I suppose one can maintain the pious hope that Francis is acting in ignorant innocence with his manifold attacks upon the ancient Faith (get ready for further attacks on the Liturgy and Communion for protestants!), but I believe the massive evidence we have accrued in less than 5 years indicates that invincible ignorance is out of the question. I am also becoming increasingly aware of very poignant, pained, and emotional personal interventions made by good souls to Francis to amend his ways, but he has coldly and brusquely dismissed all of these. Perhaps some of these will make it to print one day, unfortunately what I have learned is too much of hearsay and unsubstantiated to print.

The nomination as a member of the Apostolic Signatura is “not a full-time position”, Cardinal Raymond Burke told journalists on Monday. He will assist in the work and serve as a judge when asked to do so.

Burke further stated according to Vaticanista Edward Pentin, that the nomination will not change nor delay his plans to issue a fraternal correction of Pope Francis if he further declines to answer the dubia.

I’d say the time for that correction is now, good Cardinal Burke. However, I can understand delay if you are having difficulty finding others to join you in this correction, though I suspect with the Correctio out there are gathering support, now is about as good as time as you will find.

Please pray for Cardinal Burke and all those who are working to stop the total dissolution of the Church. They need much support for strength. I am personally praying that more bishops – especially some active ones- will sign the Correctio and then join Burke in his own correction. Where things go from there will be in God’s hands, but I pray the truth may see the light of day and the Lord’s will be done.

Yesterday, we saw the unfortunate comments of former Bishop of Dallas, and now Cardinal-Elect, Kevin Farrell, singing the Francis tune for all its worth. In the same interview, he also dropped some none-too-subtle criticisms of American prelates like Chaput who have made clear they will not be implementing false mercy for manifest adulterers, admitting them to reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Farrell made clear he had wished Chaput and similar conservativish bishops had waited until the USCCB – a locus of administrative bureaucracy to the point of killing faith if I’ve ever seen one – had reached some common, watered down, soul-numbing policy all could agree to.

Well, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia has now fired back, wondering if Farrell even read his archdiocesan policy, claiming Farrell’s concerns were very far from the mark. Given what I know of Farrell’s lack of what you might call thoroughness and intellectual persistence, and near total acceptance of the cultural conventional wisdom, I’d say it’s a fairly safe bet to conclude he not only hadn’t read the policy, but couldn’t care less. Let’s see what Chaput had to say in rebuttal (my emphasis and comments):

“I wonder if Cardinal-designate Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion,” the archbishop stated in comments emailed to LifeSiteNews.

Earlier this week, Farrell — one of Pope Francis’ most outspoken American supporters — said that he disagreed with Chaput issuing his own guidelines in his own diocese, stating that implementing the pope’s exhortation should be done “in communion” with all U.S. bishops. [Well. So did Farrell similarly complain when the bishops of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires chose to implement Amoris Laetitia according to Francis’ revolutionary intent, instead of waiting for a joint decision of all the bishops of Argentina? Yeah…….we’ll see that about a month after hell freezes over]

But at the center of Farrell’s criticism appears to be Chaput’s insistence that the document be interpreted, as Chaput has previously stated, “within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life.” Chaput’s guidelines unequivocally state that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy.”

For Farrell, this is problematic.

“I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no,” the cardinal-designate told Catholic News Service on Tuesday. “I think there are all kinds of different circumstances and situations that we have to look at — each case as it is presented to us,” he said. “I think that is what our Holy Father is speaking about, is when we talk about accompanying, it is not a decision that is made irrespective of the couple.” [This is nothing but an apologia for excusing and ultimately ignoring sin. This is exactly – I mean precisely, even to the use of the exact same words – the same argument put forth by the Currans and Drinans with regard to use of contraception in the late 60s and early 70s. Contraception would only be for married persons, after a period of discernment and accompaniment, under the watchful eye of a priest. Yeah……how has that worked out. Exactly as they intended, that’s how, with Catholic use of contraception completely indistinguishable from that of the general population, and souls likely – almost certainly – falling into hell like snowflakes]

But Chaput called Farrell’s criticism of his guidelines, and the fact that he issued the guidelines as a bishop acting in his own diocese, “puzzling.”

“Why would a bishop delay interpreting and applying Amoris Laetitia for the benefit of his people? On a matter as vital as sacramental marriage, hesitation and ambiguity are neither wise nor charitable,” Chaput said. [That’s the least of what could be said in rebuttal]

“I think every bishop in the United States feels a special fidelity to Pope Francis as Holy Father. We live that fidelity by doing the work we were ordained to do as bishops. Under canon law — not to mention common sense — governance of a diocese belongs to the local bishop as a successor of the apostles, not to a conference, though bishops’ conferences can often provide a valuable forum for discussion. [Whatever] As a former resident bishop, the cardinal-designate surely knows this, which makes his comments all the more puzzling in the light of our commitment to fraternal collegiality,” he added. [Maybe they aren’t so puzzling after all. Maybe the message is, you will comply, or else. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but soon, there will be repercussions for “dissent”]

Chaput doubled down on his key for interpreting the exhortation, stating that any implementation that contradicts not only Sacred Scripture but the Church’s previous magisterial teaching is contrary to the mission of the Church given to her by Christ.

“Life is messy. But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues. The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce,” he said.

Dang right. Good for Chaput. I’d rather it be said with a bit more emphasis, that the veil of false episcopal decorum be dropped entirely, but so be it. He still made a very effective rebuttal. Farrell can hardly respond save for appeal to authority – “bu- bu- but the pope said!” That used to be all one had to say, but who knows what the future may hold.

An interview with CNS of former Dallas Bishop and now Cardinal-elect Farrell raised quite a bit of well-earned ire with quotes like “perhaps we have emphasized rules and regulations to excess” and “focus on Jesus, not rules.” First of all, the Church isn’t obsessed with “rules and regulations,” but with teaching the Truth that is required of souls in order to be saved. If you want rules and regulations for their own sake, go work for a Roman dicastery, they have tons of them. When prelates like Farrell reduce the Sacred Truth Jesus Christ has revealed through His Church to “rules and regulations,” they are revealing that they are fundamentally disconnected with the Church and Her role as the vehicle of salvation for all men, and are subordinated the Sacred Deposit of Faith for the preferences of fallen men and a sick, dying culture.

There’s a lot in here to unpack, I’ll only pick a few gems:

Right from the get-go, Farrell announces that “My training for this job was pastoral work. Forget all the administrative part, that’s the least important.” Really, Bishop Farrell? When was that? You only ever served in a parish for about 18 months. You’ve held administrative positions for the last 30 years solid. Yes, a bishop should certainly have a major pastoral role, but you were known throughout this diocese as an unreachable man who was rarely in town and who viewed duties like visiting parishes a hassle to be endured. You were generally escorted in and out of parish events as quickly as possible. But apparently you said all the right things in your interview, you’re now “a man of the people.”

In using the parable of the prodigal son to make his point about the Church embracing sinners without question or call to conversion – one must assume, because that’s what we’ve heard from Francis since Day 1 – Farrell completely misconstrues the parable, which conversion and embrace by the Father was based on the son’s contrition and conversion. But that is not what Francis wants to do in handing out the Sacred Species of Our Blessed Lord in the Flesh without any visible sign of avoiding mortal sin, repentance, and conversion.

Doctrinal indifference has never attracted souls to the Church. The last 50 years is hideous testimony to that fact. The Church has grown and been most vibrant when Doctrine has been preached with clearly and with fervor, and when the corruption and laxity in the priesthood and other areas of the Church has been at a minimum. That’s exactly what the Counter-Reformation was about. And, no, Francis is not drawing crowds larger or more fervent than his predecessors. In fact, in many cases, they are far smaller than they have been in the past.

“We need a more loving, a more caring Church.” Consigning souls to hell because of doctrinal laxity and even the promotion of heresy is the complete, total inversion of love. It is a diabolical inversion of that, to be frank.

“We keep pushing rules and regulations all the time. Well, none of us are good at following rules. And perhaps we have emphasized rules and regulations to excess.” I think the Cardinal-elect may have revealed a great deal more than he intended.

I’m out of time, but I covered most of what Farrell said. He certainly knows exactly what to say to achieve his career objectives. I grow less and less convinced, however, that those objectives have much at all to do with the good of souls. Being charitable, perhaps he thinks he is willing the good of the Church as a material, worldly construct, but it’s not an approach to ecclesiology I think any of the Apostles would have recognized, or shared. What comes through to me throughout – and this is a view shared by most prelates, that large majority heavily influenced by neo-modernism – is that the eternal destiny of souls is hardly considered, or, to the extent it is, Farrell believes virtually all souls are saved, and thus Doctrine really shouldn’t matter much. Unfortunately, 2000 years of belief and practice, not to mention the clear guidance of Sacred Scripture, say he, and those many, many like him, are not just wrong, but damnably so.

I’m out of time, or I’d say more. I don’t know who will replace Farrell in Dallas, I think we’ll be waiting for quite some time to come, but he’d have to be quite liberal indeed to surpass where Farrell is at right now.

Wellity wellity wellity………the things we learn my little droogies. I had sometimes scratched my rassoodok, wondering if perhaps I weren’t a bit too hard on our former Bishop Kevin Farrell. Now, the evidence against him was really overwhelming, but I think most every Catholic who has a sense of fealty towards his ecclesiastical superiors does have an occasional doubt or two when he finds himself cross-ways with the man appointed to serve as his spiritual shepherd.

And Farrell had done some good. The Fraternity parish, increase in vocations, end of the horrific run of scandals, getting the diocese’s funding situation in order, approving some orthodox lay people here and there for fairly influential assignments. He could have been worse. As I believe I fairly conclusively demonstrated late last week, Farrell started off his tenure probably a shade or two right of center but after March 2013 veered quite perceptibly leftwards. What was his true inclination, if he even has one, other than parroting the opinions of the men he felt the need to please?

Well, if his first interview is any indication, I was not unfair at all in my appraisal of Farrell, and may well have even been more generous with him than I should have. Amazingly, the Cardinal-Elect Prefect of Francis’ very powerful and influential new dicastery for the family gave his first major English-language interview to the National Heretic Reporter, and immediately launched forth on a very radical, and very combative, assessment of Amoris Laetitia, it’s doctrinal standing, and its role in the remaking of the Church.

I quote extensively from LifeSiteNews below, as there is quite a bit to unpack. My emphasis and comments:

In a lengthy new interview, Bishop and soon-to-be cardinal Kevin Farrell said whether those in unions the Church labels adulterous may receive Communion is a “process of discernment and of conscience.” He says Amoris Laetitia “is the teaching of the Church,” comes from the Holy Spirit, and will be the “guiding document” of the new Vatican dicastery Pope Francis appointed him to head.

In August, Pope Francis named Farrell, the former bishop of Dallas, to lead the newly-formed Dicastery for the Laity, the Family and Life. The Pontifical Council for the Laity and to the Pontifical Council for the Family will be folded into this new dicastery. On Sunday, Pope Francis announced that Farrell had been named a cardinal along with two other U.S. bishops: Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich and Indianapolis Archbishop Joseph Tobin (not to be confused with Rhode Island’s strongly pro-life Bishop Thomas Tobin).

The appointment of these three bishops as cardinals is a “seismic shift” in the American Catholic Church, according to Vatican expert John Allen Jr., because Farrell, Cupich, and Tobin belong “to the centrist, non-cultural warrior wing of the country’s hierarchy.” [We can see how far left Allen is, by his incredible definition of “centrist.” By his standards, Chairman Mao was just a shade left of center]

Speaking to the National Catholic Reporter, long condemned for its open opposition to Church teaching, Farrell said, “I think that the documentAmoris Laetitia is faithful to the doctrine and to the teaching of the church. It is carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II. I believe that passionately. Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.” [Regarding “carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio, such a comment is beneath contempt. It is positively Orwellian in its inversion of the truth. And apparently, Farrell assesses something as being from the Holy Ghost or not according to how well it aligns with his own ideological views]

………“I firmly believe [Amoris Laetitia] is the teaching of the church,” said Farrell. “This is a pastoral document telling us how we should proceed. I believe we should take it as it is.”

Farrell said he wasn’t necessarily saying the divorced and remarried should receive Communion.

“That’s a process of discernment and of conscience,” and a “journey,” he said. “The priest, the pastor needs to accompany people in difficult situations.” [This is EXACTLY the language the revolutionaries in the Church a generation ago used to obtain a practical apostasy on the subject of contraception and, to a lesser degree, abortion. Charles Curran and his ilk used intentionally deceptive phrases, claiming contraceptive use could/would only be rightly used by solidly Catholic married couples after a process of discernment, guided by a priest, and only for very serious reasons. Yeah, that lasted about 5 minutes. Then it was all contraception, all the time, and, in fact, if you don’t contracept, you’re a bad Catholic, because look at how you are assaulting poor defenseless mother nature]

Farrell told the National Catholic Reporter the divorced and remarried should be included “in all the ministries of the church.”

In honesty, I am not surprised by this in the slightest. This is precisely the kind of opinion I would expect both of a man so rapidly promoted by Francis, and given so important a new position. I’m also completely unsurprised at what heterodoxy Farrell is all too happy to support, given the right reward.

What this does make clear is that this is both the required position Francis is demanding of ambitious men in the Church, and the vehicle by which a new stage of the social revolution is to be conducted. I deliberately mentioned contraception above, because this reception of the Blessed Sacrament by manifest adulterers is an even more egregious affront to the Sovereign Lord. These guys have no new tools, no new methods, just the same old lies they’ve trotted out for the last 50 years. What they do have, however, is power, and the will to use it in unjust, even cruel manner. Just as the FFIs and FSIs about that.

Enjoy your newchurch. For me, I think the SSPX would be insane to accept the carrot of “regularization” at this time. I also find it absolutely ludicrous that the SSPX can be held out to be irregular, while creatures like Farrell get to walk around pretending to be the image of Catholic orthodoxy. That is too great an affront to logic and decency for me to bear.

I’m about to be stuck in the lab for the rest of the day, so enjoy this brief synopsis of Kevin J. Farrell’s “evolution” in thinking over the course of his 8 1/2 years in Dallas.

First, that pretty fair voting guide he and Bishop Kevin Vann produced prior to the 2008 election, shredding the “seamless garment” and providing pretty clear guidance to Catholic voters (noting, however, even this could/should have been vastly better).

Dang. I’ve read all the Gospels like 7 or 8 times cover to cover. I must really suck at reading comprehension.

Is that what you call closing the deal for a Secretariat and red hat?

Then of course there was the parish gun ban debacle, which, thank God, didn’t go as he expected (at all), then the 180 on immigration, then permitting Biden to receive Communion in the Diocese, then the liberalization of the ministry conference, then further mucking around with UD, then……

We all wondered, back in the day, who really was the impetus behind that voting guide, Farrell, or Vann? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

I’ll admit, I was a bit shocked by the timing. I’ve mentioned the wise local priest who more or less predicted the course of Bishop Farrell’s tenure here (in very broad, but accurate, strokes), and one additional thing he told me was that Dallas was viewed as such a hardship assignment after 17 disastrous years of administration by Charles Grahmann, and Bishop Farrell had such a golden boy aura about him, that his next sinecure would be a really plumb one, and would probably come with a red hat attached. But he thought that would be several years down the road, not literally a few days after Bishop Farrell’s arrival in Rome.

Well, the ladder has been climbed. I guess spending virtually no time as a parish priest has its rewards.

Snark aside, Bishop Farrell is, if nothing else, a relatively able administrator. I think he could have done a very great deal more to reform and reorient this diocese in a much more successful and faithful direction, but apparently, the powers that be, be very, very pleased. It is difficult to convey what a wreck he inherited here. Grahmann was, as a commenter rightly noted, laying the groundwork for lay-administered Eucharistic services and basically priestless parishes a la Albany and Rochester (and Dallas was nearly in that league back in 2007 or so). Farrell did stop that trend and emphasized the requirement for virtually all parishes (aside from some very small ones administered by priests from elsewhere) to have permanently assigned priests. He also saw a number of relatively to strongly orthodox young men ordained, men who will one day form, it is fervently hoped, the backbone of a much improved clergy in Dallas.

It’s a bit interesting that Farrell gained his red piping along with a group that is widely viewed as exceedingly liberal, including two of the most liberal prelates in the US, Blaise Cupich and Joseph Tobin (not the relatively conservative Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI). Just as interesting is who was passed over, again: Gomez, Chaput, and Vigernon, men who have led far larger dioceses for far longer than either Tobin or Farrell, and who serve in archdioceses almost always associated with a cardinal’s hat, historically. But they are seen as conservatives, and thus out of fashion in this pontificate. You can draw your own conclusions on where deep Church insiders view Farrell’s ideology/ecclesiology, since he was included in such a group. He started out somewhat conservativish here, at least from a lay person’s perspective, but visibly swung liberal under Francis. At least, that’s what I and my two friends think.

Pope Francis will conclude the Year of Mercy by creating 17 new cardinals, including three from the United States: Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Chicago; Bishop Kevin J. Farrell, prefect of the new Vatican office for laity, family and life; and Archbishop Joseph W. Tobin of Indianapolis.

Announcing the names of the new cardinals Oct. 9, Pope Francis said, “Their coming from 11 nations expresses the universality of the church that proclaims and witnesses the good news of God’s mercy in every corner of the earth.”

The new cardinals — 13 of whom are under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote in a conclave to elect a new pope and four over 80 being honored for their “clear Christian witness” — will be inducted into the College of Cardinals Nov. 19, the eve of the close of the Year of Mercy.

The next day, Nov. 20, they will join Pope Francis and other cardinals in celebrating the feast of Christ the King and closing the Year of Mercy, the pope said……..

……..In creating 13 cardinal-electors — those under the age of 80 — Pope Francis will exceed by one the 120 cardinal-elector limit set by Blessed Paul VI. The number of potential electors will return to 120 Nov. 28 when Cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr of Dakar, Senegal, celebrates his 80th birthday.

The youngest of the new cardinals — who will be the youngest member of the College of Cardinals — is 49-year-old Archbishop Dieudonne Nzapalainga of Bangui, Central African Republic……..

………Seven of the 11 nations represented by the new cardinals did not have a cardinal at the time of the pope’s announcement: Central African Republic, Bangladesh, Mauritius and Papua New Guinea will now have cardinal-electors. Malayasia [are there a million Catholics in all of Malaysia? There are not], Lesotho and Albania will be represented in the College of Cardinals, although their cardinals will be too old to vote in a conclave.

Here is the list of new cardinals in the order in which Pope Francis announced them: